By IANS
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Friday temporarily restrained the Haryana government from making a hole in the Bhakra Canal in Kaithal district to feed a water channel being built by the state to irrigate farm land.
A bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran, in an interim order, stalled the Haryana government till Sep 5 from making the canal, on an application by the Punjab government opposing construction of the water channel.
The bench issued notice to the Haryana government seeking its response to the Punjab government’s opposition to the construction of the water channel.
The bench, however, refused to stay the ongoing construction of the 20-km-long water channel, called ‘Hansi Branch Butana Branch of the Multipurpose Link Channel’, being built to link with Bhakra canal through a perforation near Ajimgarh village in Kaithal, Haryana.
The water channel runs from west to east, adjoining the territory of Punjab. It is to have a 10.2-feet-high embankment for the first 11 km and taper to a seven-feet-high embankment along the subsequent nine km run.
The counsel for Punjab government Rajiv Dhavan contended that the embankment would obstruct the free flow of surface water from north to south and result in flooding the territory of Punjab.
He said the water deluge in turn would result in submergence of 20,756 acres of Punjab land in 32 villages and require displacement of over 100,000 people in the state.
Objecting to the construction of the water channel by the Haryana government, Dhavan said that the project would also ruin the existing irrigation system as well as communication system in the state and inflict other damages.
Terming the construction by Haryana as “violation of territorial rights of Punjab”, Dhavan pointed out that even the farming land in the Yamuna basin that Haryana proposed to irrigate through the channel was not part of the areas identified for irrigation in the Bhakra Nangal agreement of 1959.
Dhavan said Haryana’s project was akin to “creating an extra-territorial nuisance” against Punjab and amounted to trespass into its territory.
The apex court restrained Haryana from perforating the canal, rejecting the contentions by its counsel Shanti Bhushan that the court could not restrain the government from perforating the canal without hearing its arguments.
The court, however, observed that it was an “original suit” between two states, where the court was empowered to restrain a state through interim orders.